Ascription is an Anathema to any Enthusiasm

I’m struck by how much Technorati’s new WTF seems to so very analogous to Everything2. Both want to be about providing useful definitions for things. They aren’t quite encyclopedias or dictionaries (ala wikipedia) because their domain is more dynamic, more situated in the cultural noise. I’ve mentioned in passing before my cartoon version of the Everything2 story, e.g by giving bonus points for “cool” postings they ended up getting a site full of entertaining rather than authoritative stuff.  So far the Technorati system has a very simple voting system.  Too simple if you ask me.  T’s WTF is, of course, are in that fun period of first contact with users [1].   But then there is quite substanative difference; Everything2 was a giant experiment in reputation and governance.  I doubt that’s high on Technorati’s agenda.

Clay’s essay urging a strategy of preparing for emergence rather than designing to control risk.  It is perfectly natural for designers to presume that the right route to a mature large system is to enumerate the features of large mature systems and then to start designing, building, and testing them. Clay argues that this behavior is a mistake and I agree.

The 2D B-school plain upon which Clay’s essay rests is plasticity v.s. specificity. As systems mature they become less plastic and more specific. Designers can decide to consciously chart course across this plain.

The nicest turn of phrase in the essay is that “Software systems, however perfect, rarely survive first contact with users unscathed…”. There is a phase change as systems mature, a chilling effect. The designer’s problem is to husband the system’s plasticity, it’s warmth. Spending it during design is a mistake.

The trick is to chart a course during design that increases both specificity and plasticity; so that when you met the users and the cooling begins you can condense structures that are best suited to your joint needs. You want these structures to be ones the users will perceive as legitimate, valuable, comprehensible because they were negotiated jointly. The challenge during design is to prepare to build them, but not to build them.

Mike Neuenschwander’s Law of Relational Risk

“Contribution to the relationship that is not met proportionally by the other participants is a loss to the contributor.”

is perfectly fine but that it suffers from Asperger’s Syndrome. Relationships are not like accounting. Since there is no reserve currency for relationships it is impossible to balance the books. Since there is no accounting cycle when the books are required to be brought upto date any attempt to balance the books will fail. Their is no consensus about discount rates, they are unregulated. For example if something bad happens to me in a relationship I can, of my own free will, depreciate that into oblivion via forgiveness or I can compound the issue demanding increasing compensation.

Bearing that in mind the rest of his post is all good and useful fun. Mapping economic ideas into the rest of the social sphere is more than fun, it is deeply silly.

Yahoo turns the heat up on the ping hub market. This should be a standard rather than a market.

Concentrations of power can shape the world around around them. How is the question.

For example, market power, those with it can shape their markets.  While, small players skitter looking for niches and opportunities; big players can shape their niche.   In all cases firms question the vitality of their complements.  The innovator decides measures risk of each new technology. Large firms can control the health of their complements, for them it becomes actionable. In extreme cases they can make their own weather.

Two classic examples. Microsoft successfully killed Netscape by cutting off their air supply. Of course getting caught was a mistake but on the whole it may still have been worth the cost. Microsoft blew it when they made their hardware complement into a commodity. When your relationship with a supplier is perfectly commoditized then they have no loyalty to you. Commodity hardware enabled Linux.

Powerful market powers do shape the world, that’s the key point. Nobody is immune. Open source giants - e.g. Wikipedia, Mozilla, FSF, ASF, Sourceforge, etc. etc. - are not immune to this syndrome. Nor are large standards bodies like Oasis, the IETF, or the W3. What, presumably differentiates these classes of actors in how they answer the question: given the power now what?

Each class of actors legitimizes their actions in different ways. The discussion of legitimacy if both an internal one and one had with audiences outside the organization. While those dialogs are rarely in perfect alignment, over time they have to be kept consistent.

The process of solving the problem, the problem of how to deal with market power, includes at least three aspects: values, governance, and execution. These also must be consistent over time.

This question can not be avoided. Concentration, and hence power, happens.